Categories
Foreign Policy National Security

A Timeline of the Russian-Georgian War

[digg-reddit-me]I’ve refrained from writing about the Georgia crisis until now, because although I have had an interest in Russia, and had been sensing a growing wariness about Russia among the rarified field of foreign policy experts, I did not have an immediate sense of what was going on in that conflict.

Although it was clear that Russia was increasingly attempting to dominate it’s near-abroad, the timing of the conflict seemed to indicate that it was Georgian President Saakashvili who had most to gain.

In my discussions with others about the matter, there seems to be a great deal of confusion – and narratives and counter-narratives driven by propaganda have dominated these discussions.  So, as a preliminary step, and for backwards refences, I am constructing here a timeline of events and a list of the players.

The Players

Georgia has been part of various Russian empires since the 1800s. After Communists took over in 1917, Georgia declared independence. By 1921, the Soviet Union had attacked and subjugated it again. As the Soviet Union began to crumble in 1989, Georgia again began to push for independence. This led to the massacre of Georgian citizens by the Soviet army at an unauthorized but peaceful demonstration. By 1991, Georgia was again independent. But ethnic tensions soon led to two civil wars taking place – with Russians supporting the forces that opposed the central Georgian government in both places.

One of the civil wars took place in Abkhazia, where Russian supported the minority Abhkaz who sought to ethnically cleanse their part of the country. A 1989 census reveals that just under half of the country’s population was ethnically Georgian (239,872) and under 20% was Abkhaz (93,267). Fourteen years later, The Abkhaz made up over 40% of the population with only a small rise in total population (94,606) while ethnic Georgians now accounted for just over 20% of the population (45,952). The Georgian population in Abkazia decreased by almost 200,000 over this time. Of course, these statistics do not tell the entire story. The Abkhaz minority had opposed the Georgian attempt to achieve indedependence from Russia and both sides had used ethnicly directed violence in the civil war in the early 1990s. See the Human Rights Watch report on the conflict. (PDF). Russian peacekeepers have been deployed in Abkhazia since the end of the violence.

The other Georgian civil war took place in South Ossetia. South Ossetia has been considered part of Georgia for some time – and was incorporated into the Russian empire as part of Georgia in 1801, and was part of Georgia when it declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1917 and 1991. However, in both instances, the South Ossetians opposed breaking from the Soviet Union – and took up arms with the support of the Russians against the central Georgian government.  The Soviet Union’s most prominent leader, Josef Stalin, was, in fact, from the country of Georgia, and an ethnic Ossetian. When Georgia declared independence, the South Ossetians opposed this and boycotted elections. After Georgia established it’s independence, a civil war broke out with some 25,000 ethnic Georgians fleeing the region with ethnic violence being used by both sides. By 1992, a peacekeeping force led by the Russians, but including both Ossetians and Georgians was able to enforce a peace agreement. There was relative peace in South Ossetia until 2004 when tensions began to mount. The Russians had continued to build up their peacekeeping force in the region, and had been supplying the South Ossetian army with large caches of weapons. They had allowed free reign to various criminal gangs operating out of South Ossetia (including one that attempted to sell nuclear materials to a joint US/Georgian sting operation.)

Russia considered the American alliance with Georgia (as well as American alliances with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuiania, Ukraine, Poland, Kazakhstan, and other former Soviet colonies) to be a regional challenge to Russian dominance. When America and Europe recognized the independence of Kosovo (a part of Serbia, a traditional ally of Russia), Putin declared that he would begin to push for independence for the two disputed regions in Georgia. Russia – with it’s peacekeepers in each region and supply of arms to local militias and militaries – already exercised de facto control over these regions. Moreover, inundated with a mountain of cash from it’s sale of oil and natural gas, Russia has begun to act more assertively in international affairs.

America saw the small democracy of Georgia as a natural ally. America supplied arms and training to the Georgia military. Since the Rose Revolution of 2003 in which the current president, Mikheil Saakashvili, took power, America has grown closer to Georgia and recently pushed it’s membership in NATO. Aside from it’s democracy, Georgia is also seen as useful from the American perspective because it can be used as a counter to increasing Russian influence in the region.

A Timeline

From 2004 to 2008, tensions between Russia and Georgia mount.

  • The Ukranian Orange Revolution and the Georgian Rose Revolution, both of which involved attempts to steal elections by the more pro-Russian force being turned back by peaceful and mass demonstrations of the public, take place. Russia is not happy.
  • The Russian government accused the Georgians of supporting rebel Chechens in the Second Chechen war, though the evidence is inconclusive.
  • Russia also opposed Saakashvili’s efforts to crack down on seperatism in Georgia. Shortly after taking power in the Rose Revolution, Saakashvili began to pressure the autocratic leader of the independent region of Adjara to resign and allow the central government a greater role in the region. Under great pressure from internal demonstrations and international pressure, Adjara’s leader resigned and fled to Moscow before he was indicted on various charges of embezzlement, misuse of office, and murder. Adjara maintains it’s autonomous status, but is becoming further integrated into the Georgian polity. Russia had sided with Adjara’s leader during the conflict and had wanted to maintain a military base in the region. So this further escalated tensions. Russia is not happy.
  • Georgia began a military build-up in the regions outside of Abhkaz and South Ossetia. Russia continues to increase it’s peacekeeping force and to arm those opposed to the central Georgian government. Neither side is happy.
  • Georgia pushed for and America supported Georgia’s bid to become a member of NATO, a military alliance originally created to oppose the Soviet Union.  Russia is not happy.
  • Russia’s power and wealth is increasing as it has become Europe’s main source of natural gas and a major exporter of oil. Russia is happy and more powerful.

August 8, 2007: Georgia claimed that a Russian jet violated it’s airspace and fired a missile, which did not explode. American and European countries urged both countries to ratchet down the rhetoric.

In March 2008, things began to escalate. America recognized Kosovo as an independent nation. Kosovo was part of Serbia, a traditional Russian ally, and the Russian opposed the independence of Kosovo. Russia threatened to take steps to escalate the situation in South Ossetia and Abhkazia.

Later in March, Russia took diplomatic steps to further the process of recognizing these two regions as independent states.

In April 2008, the Georgian government accused the Russians of shooting down an unmanned drone in Georgian airspace. Russia denied this. A United Nations report later backs up the Georgian version of events. The rhetoric escalates on both sides as they both accuse the other of attempting to escalate the conflict.

May 2008 sees Russia inceasing it’s peacekeeping force in Abhkazia. Seperatists in Abhkazia claim to have shot down Georgian drones operating over Abhkazia. Georgia denied having any drones operating there. (The Georgians are probably lying about this.)

In July 2008, Russian fighter jets flew over South Ossetia, into Georgian airspace. Moscow claimed it violated Georgia’s territory in order to “cool heads” in Georgia’s capitol. Georgia withdrew it’s ambassador to Moscow in protest.

Meanwhile, mixed messages are being sent. The United States continued to express strong support of Georgia and Saakashvili in public and to caution him in private to avoid taking any steps to escalate the situation. At the same time, Russia’s peacekeepers are allowing various criminal gangs to operate out of South Ossetia, and periodic attacks by Ossetian seperatists into Georgia are overlooked.

August 1, 2008: Fighting between Georgian and South Ossetian forces breaks out. Georgia accuses the South Ossetians of shelling nearby Georgian villages. The seperatists deny this.

August 5, 2008: As ethnic South Ossetians begin to evacuate into Russia, the Russian ambassador declares that Russia will defend South Ossetia against Georgia.

August 7, 2008: Georgian President Saakashvili orders a ceasefire, but fighting still intensifies. Later in the day, in a televised address, he orders Georgian forces to remove what he calls the “criminal regime” in South Ossetia.

August 8, 2008: Russian troops storm South Ossetia with massive force pushing back the Georgians, and launching attacks deep into Georgia to entirely destroy it’s military infrastructure. Russia claims that Georgia had killed thousands of Ossetians in an effort to ethnically cleanse the region. Human Righs Watch is unable to find any evidence of this, finding only 45 civilian deaths in South Ossetia. However, they find massive evidence of ethnically motivated attacks on ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia and widespread looting by seperatists.

August 9, 2008: Russian-backed seperatists in Abkhazia launch an attack on the region still controlled by ethnic Georgians who wish to remain part of Georgia.

August 10, 2008: The Russians move SS-21 medium-range ballistic missile launchers into South Ossetia, weapons which could potentially be nuclear.

August 11, 2008: Russians deploy paratroopers in Abhkazia to raid Georgia proper.

August 13, 2008: Georgia withdraws all of it’s forces from the disputed territories. Despite a ceasefire order by the Kremlin, Russian forces occupy the country’s main highway and attacks the city of Gori, splitting the nation in two.

Human Rights Watch issues a report documenting the burning and looting of ethnic Georgian villages as well as the restraint of the Georgian army in South Ossetia.

August 15, 2008: Human Rights Watch reports that Russia used cluster bombs on the civilian population of Georgia.

August 16, 2008: Russians occupy the Georgian port city of Poti and several other strategic positions within the nation and advance within 34 miles of the Georgian capitol of Tblisi. The Associated Press reports that ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia have been drafted as forced laborers under guard by Russian and South Ossetian troops.

August 17, 2008: The Russian President Medvedev announces that Russian troops will begin to pull out of the undisputed territory of Georgia on Monday.

Edit: August 18, 2008: In a report meant to sum up the human rights violations in this conflict to date, Human Rights Watch reports that the Georgians’ used “indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali and neighboring villages on August 7-8, [caused] numerous civilian casualties and extensive destruction.” The report mainly describes:

Russian military’s use of indiscriminate force and its seemingly targeted attacks on civilians, including on a civilian convoy. The deliberate use of force against civilians or civilian objects is a war crime. Human Rights Watch has also confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia.

Ian Traynor of Britain’s The Guardian and Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post each had insightful columns this weekend analyzing the conflict with clarity.

Dobbs summarizes the war:

Saakashvili’s decision to gamble everything on a lightning grab for Tskhinvali brings to mind the comment of the 19th-century French statesman Talleyrand: “It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.”

Michael Walzer in the liberal Dissent magazine also has a good piece.

But the single most important insight came in a column by this blog’s nemesis, Paul Krugman, last Friday:

By itself, as I said, the war in Georgia isn’t that big a deal economically. But it does mark the end of the Pax Americana — the era in which the United States more or less maintained a monopoly on the use of military force. And that raises some real questions about the future of globalization. [My emphasis.]

Categories
Election 2008 Politics

xkcd v. Diebold

xkcd explains the idiocy of Diebold’s defense of it’s voting system.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics Scandal-mongering The Clintons The Opinionsphere

The PUMAs and Jerome Corsi

To those Hillary supporters in the PUMA Movement who are crowing over this book, over how well-documented it is, and over how Hillary wouldn’t be susceptible to these charges, Corsi has a significant history of Hillary-bashing and raising baseless allegations about her.  To those other PUMAs who are echoing the questions based on Corsi’s loony allegations without citing the author – as he clearly is a nutcase – shame on you.

While any individual has any right to question and investigate any other individual’s life – by demanding that Obama disprove all the ridiculous allegations Corsi makes, you give more weight to Corsi’s work than it deserves. More important, the Obama campaign already released a 40 page rebuttal to various claims made in Corsi’s book – which I doubt any of the PUMAs who are echoing these claims have closely analyzed.

And if we are going to start investigating all of Corsi’s claims about significant public officials, Corsi accuses Hillary of running over people:

Hellary should resign and go away. What ever happened to the people she ran over with her car at Westchester Airport? Can’t anybody sue this b*tch?

Corsi also asks:

Anybody ask why HELLary couldn’t keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?

Given Corsi’s history, I’m sure there are quite a few other ridiculous and baseless claims he has made about Hillary as well as any other Democrat.

Categories
Catholicism Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

Jerome Corsi, Author of Obama Nation, Is an Anti-Catholic Bigot

[digg-reddit-me]I write this as a Catholic, disappointed and disheartened by the abuse scandal in the Church. I also write this as a dedicated supporter of Barack Obama.

Jerome Corsi, the author of Obama Nation, the bestselling, bound volume of deliberate and egregious lies about Barack Obama, is apparently an anti-Catholic bigot (also a 9/11 truther, and a serial slanderer of Islam and Judaism). Put aside the fact that much of this supposedly well-researched book has been entirely debunked (with a 40 page rebuttal from the Obama campaign called “Unfit to Publish” here.) Media Matters uncovered a number of Corsi’s postings on freerepublic.com in which Jerome Corsi attacks Catholicism and the Pope.

In 2003, a poster that Media Matters identifies as Corsi wrote:

Maybe while [Pope John Paul II]’s there he can tell the UN what he’s going to do about the sexual crimes committed by “priests” in his “Church” during his tenure. Or, maybe that’s the connection – boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press.

In 2002, Corsi wrote:

So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it.

This now makes two anti-Catholic bigots who have prominently provided support for John McCain. Catholics are far from a uniform voting bloc, but as they are traditionally the most significant swing vote voting, you have to wonder how this anti-Catholic bias will affect McCain’s campaign.

If you recall, McCain condemned the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004 – attacks based on the book that Jerome Corsi co-wrote.  He specifically called “the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.” It’s hard to see any justification McCain could use to justify calling on Bush to condemn the Swift-Boaters while no condemning this piece of trash by Corsi.

This book has been in the news for some weeks now, which reaises the question: Why is McCain taking so long to declare the book off-limits?

This isn’t the campaign that McCain claimed he was going to run. This is not an honorable campaign. This is gutter-politics.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics The Media The Web and Technology

‘The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet’ is a Conservative Strawman


[FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell at a Tech Policy Summit. Picture by TechPolicySummit used under a Creative Commons license.]

[digg-reddit-me]With some new information, I’m adding to the timeline I created to demonstrate the significance of FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell’s comments on net neutrality (which is also a useful link to check out if you’re unfamiliar with the Fairness Doctrine) a few days ago.

The situation:

The Politics:

Obama is in favor of net neutrality.

McCain thinks it’s all confusing ((His exact quote is: “I go back and forth on the issue.)) and claims he doesn’t know what his position is (though he has made definitive statements opposing it.)

The Democrats are generally in favor of net neutrality.

It has not been a big issue for Republicans, but a few have come out against it (see Ted Stevens.)  The conservative base hates the Fairness Doctrine though with a passion.

Since the idea occured to them: Big internet companies want to charge more for customers to access certain internet sites, or to allow certain sites to have priority and to slow down others, and in general to assert control over internet content.

October 2007: The Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by companies opposed to net neutrality, publishes a report explaining that a good way to attack net neutrality is to call it “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet (PDF).”

Spring 2008: Internet providers begin experiments with tiered pricing and other anti-net-neutrality practices.

After McCain secures Republican nomination: He begins to rake in large sums of money from AT&T, the US Telecom Association, Verizon, and other companies opposing net neutrality.

June 2008: A Republican Congressmen introduces a bill to outlaw the Fairness Doctrine (which has been illegal since the 1980s).

Later in June 2008: A conservative reporter publishes a story which alleges that Nancy Pelosi is considering reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

August 12, 2008: FCC Commissioner, Robert McDowell, says that net neutrality could lead to the regulation of political speech on the internet, as if it’s the Fairness Doctrine for the internet.

The Drudge Report publicizes the speech with the scare headline:

FCC Commissioner: Return of 'Fairness Doctrine' Could Control Web Content...

Now: Conservative talk radio hosts are talking about how net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine for the internet. (I heard Steve Marlsburg, a bete noir of this blog, who is so old he probably still calls the internet the world wide web ranting on this subject on his show yesterday.) Conservative bloggers are jumping on the bandwagon.

Next week, McCain plans on releasing the details of his Technology Policy which is reported to be “market-oriented.”

Then for my pessimistic speculation…

These conservatives begin to raise the issue in attacks on Obama, liberals, etcetera. Progressives and liberals defend net neutrality.

And then: Independent-minded people and journalists who haven’t been paying attention to this issue finally notice now that conflicts are arising.  Journalists cover the issue giving “both sides” and independents throw up their hands, unable to pick a side.

And: Conservatives mount a campaign attacking Democrats.  Even those conservatives who support net neutrality are silent because they’re happy for any issue on which they can hit Democrats and which they can use to fund raise.

Finally, January 2009: After the election, Democrats attempt to pass net neutrality legislation.  A grass-roots structure has been created to oppose them, and many Republicans have publicly committed to oppose it.  An obvious policy choice that should have bipartisan support becomes a struggle to enact.

(On a hopeful note, I think this is a fight the Democrats and supporters of the internet can win.)

This is how public opinion is manipulated.  This is how our political system is corrupted as the obvious and clear policy is shrouded in spin and the consensus is replaced by deliberate polarization.

…

Matt Stoller of OpenLeft is more sanguine about the effects of this campaign to tar net neutrality:

Now, the question is not substantive, it’s whether this campaign will work to persuade people that up is down, that black is white. I don’t think it will.

But what I think Stoller is missing is that this propaganda campaign does not seem directed to the public at large, but at conservative activists.  The Fairness Doctrine is not something that gets the blood of the average American boiling.  But it does evoke a Pavlovian response among conservative activists and right-wing radio listeners.

And although these groups are not large enough to force their way, they are large enough to derail the political conversation and make it harder to enact this obvious policy. Even if some do realize they are being manipulated, many are willing to go along with the party-line and take the necessary positions to gain power.

All of which points to one thing: without Barack Obama as president, net neutrality may not have the necessary support.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Politics Videos

Do you support Bush today more than you did four years ago?

A conundrum for former McCain supporters like me – how to explain McCain’s transformation from a maverick opposing a few of the worst excesses of the Bush administration to this administration’s last and most dedicated supporter.

Categories
Life Reflections

Quote of the Day

To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one’s responsibility as a free man.

From an essay “The Challenge of Fear” published in 1967 by Alan Stewart Paton, a white South African writer, liberal political activist, and author of Cry, The Beloved Country (which has been made into a movie twice – in 1951 and in 1995, and into a Broadway musical.)

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics The Opinionsphere The Web and Technology

The Battle Over Whether Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet


[FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell at a Tech Policy Summit. Picture by TechPolicySummit used under a Creative Commons license.]

[digg-reddit-me]Yesterday marked the opening of the political battle over net neutrality.

To this date, all the talk of “serieses of tubes” and the sporadic and localized attempts to create a tiered internet have been mere skirmishes.

But yesterday, Robert McDowell, an FCC Commissioner, attempted to push net neutrality into the political fray during an election season – and unleashed the first coherent attack on net neutrality.  To date, the arguments of opponents of net neutrality have focused on two fronts: pure incoherence (see Ted Stevens) and scapegoating “pirates.”  ((AAAAAARGH!))

McDowell attempted to attack net neutrality (which has not been an especially polarizing or partisan issue to date) in a way that was both clever and dishonest – by linking net neutrality to the Fairness Doctrine reviled by conservatives.

(Because I feel there is a lot to explore with this topic, I’ve divided it up into three section – a synopsis of the situation/timeline; a more in-depth explanation; and an explanation of why it is so dishonest to equate the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality.)

The situation:

The Politics:

Obama is in favor of net neutrality.

McCain thinks it’s all confusing ((His exact quote is: “I go back and forth on the issue.)) and claims he doesn’t know what his position is (though he has made definitive statements opposing it.)

The Democrats are generally in favor of net neutrality.

It has not been a big issue for Republicans, but a few have come out against it (see Ted Stevens.)  The conservative base hates the Fairness Doctrine though with a passion.

Since the idea occured to them: Big internet companies want to charge more for customers to access certain internet sites, or to allow certain sites to have priority and to slow down others.

October 2007: The Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by companies opposed to net neutrality, publishes a report explaining that a good way to attack net neutrality is to call it “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”

Spring 2008: Internet providers begin experiments with tiered pricing and other anti-net-neutrality practices.

June 2008: A Republican Congressmen introduces a bill to outlaw the Fairness Doctrine (which has been illegal since the 1980s).

Later in June 2008: A conservative reporter publishes a story which alleges that Nancy Pelosi is considering reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

August 12, 2008: An FCC Commissioner says that net neutrality could lead to the regulation of political speech on the internet, as if it’s the Fairness Doctrine for the internet.

The Drudge Report publicizes the speech with the scare headline:

FCC Commissioner: Return of 'Fairness Doctrine' Could Control Web Content...

Next: Conservative talk radio hosts begin talking about how net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine for the internet.  Conservative bloggers agree and publicize this as well.

Then: These conservatives begin to raise the issue in attacks on Obama, liberals, etcetera. Progressives and liberals defend net neutrality.

And then: Independent-minded people and journalists who haven’t been paying attention to this issue finally notice now that conflicts are arising.  Journalists cover the issue giving “both sides” and independents throw up their hands, unable to pick a side.

And: Conservatives mount a campaign attacking Democrats.  Even those conservatives who support net neutrality are silent because they’re happy for any issue on which they can hit Democrats and which they can use to fundraise.

Finally, January 2009: After the election, Democrats attempt to pass net neutrality legislation.  A grass-roots structure has been created to oppose them, and many Republicans have publicly committed to oppose it.  An obvious policy choice becomes a struggle to enact.

This is how public opinion is manipulated.  This is how our political system is corrupted as the obvious and clear policy is shrouded in spin and the consensus is replaced by deliberate polarization.

The backstory

The Fairness Doctrine (which required companies that licensed public airwaves “to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced”) had been considered a key impediment to a conservative agenda after many conservatives came to believe that that the media played a key role in their eventual defeat as they fought against the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s and anti-war movement in the late 1960s. They believed that the media was essentially liberal and that the battling liberal and conservative opinions that were forced onto the airwaves because of the Fairness Doctrine merely ended up legitimizing the inherent liberal bias of the news itself rather than effectively getting across conservative viewpoints. After legal challenges beginning in the late 1960s, the Fairness Doctrine was finally abolished in 1984.  This led directly to the right-wing talk radio boom in the late 1980s – from Rush Limbaugh to Bill O’Reilly to Sean Hannity.  This talk radio boom was an essential part of the creation of the right-wing echo chamber and conservative successes that followed, beginning with the 1994 Gingrich revolution.  Without the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the launch of talk radio, even Newt Gingrich acknowledges that the Contract With America would not have been possible.

This history is not well known among liberals – but it is common knowledge among the millions of right-wing radio listeners.  And there are many such radio listeners.  Rush Limbaugh’s audience alone is estimated to number over 20 million a week (and his recent contract extension has him making $50 million a year until 2016).  After the 2004 election, many Democrats, trying to re-group and understand the Republican dominance of the ideological debate since the 1980s, saw the attacks on the Fairness Doctrine as an essential part of the Republican strategy take control of the political debate.  (Democrats John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, and others have all made positive comments about the Fairness Doctrine, although none has declared explicit support for it’s return.)

This June, John Gizzi of Human Events magazine (which has been spouting conservative propaganda since 1944) reported that Nancy Pelosi was in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.  This revelation – though not picked up by the mainstream media – echoed through the conservative blogosphere and talk radio energizing a dispirited conservative movement.

Putting aside policy considerations, the Fairness Doctrine is as anathema to conservatives as the tiered internet is to the web-savvy.  They see it as a threat to their power, to free speech, and as an attempt to marginalize them and their politics.

Which is why McDowell’s comments today are so savvy.  By equating the Fairness Doctrine with net neutrality, he is attempting to polarize the public away from a consensus in favor of net neutrality into two competing camps. This is not all McDowell’s genius idea.  The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) published a paper in October 2007 laying out this exact argument titled Net Neutrality: A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet (PDF).  The PFF of course is an “independent-minded” organization and think tank bankrolled by Comcast, AT&T, Clear Channel, Time Warner, and Microsoft among other enormous companies that stand to profit from opposing both the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality.

What struck me when reading McDowell’s description of net neutrality as a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the internet was how off the comparison was – and I knew immediately that it was either the result of idiocy similar to Ted Stevens’s tubes or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about net neutrality.  After finding this white paper above and tracing the history of how the Fairness Doctrine suddenly and conveniently became a political issue in this electoral cycle – it seems clear that this is part of a Republican attempt to energize their base in opposition to net neutrality and find an issue on which to attack the Democrats come November and most important, to boost fund raising among those companies that oppose net neutrality in the meantime.

Which is why I say: The battle over net neutrality has been joined.

The forces that oppose net neutrality are now attempting to break up the bipartisan coalition that has supported efforts to legislate net neutrality. They are finally advancing serious (if dishonest) arguments against it.  With the Democrats likely to expand their majority in Congress and the frontrunner for the presidency a Democrat who has been a vocal advocate of net neutrality, this is the big corporations’ only chance to push net neutrality through.

If you’re wondering about McCain’s position on net neutrality, he’s not sure.  He told Brian Lehrer of WNYC that he “goes back and forth on the issue” – although conservative sites have reported that he flat-out opposes it.  Of course, McCain still doesn’t know how to “get online by [himself].” Given John McCain’s recent history of giving up principled positions in order to win over the right-wing, I think it’s a safe bet that a President McCain would finally figure out his position on the issue of net neutrality to the detriment of all internet users.

Why Net Neutrality is Very Different from the Fairness Doctrine

While the Fairness Doctrine forced broadcasters using the public airwaves to include dissenting opinions when discussing controversial issues, net neutrality prohibits internet service providers from discriminating based on content.  It’s comparing bananas to strawberries.  Both involve government regulation.  Both involve content.  Both involve media.  One forces the media to add content they would not otherwise.  The other prohibits those delivering the content to discriminate and favor some content over others.

This inherent openness is widely described as the core strength of the internet.  It allows dissenting voices to be heard.  It allows a more free market to emerge.  It is one of the essential characteristics of the architecture of the internet.

The Fairness Doctrine, despite a vogue among certain Democrats who have flirted coyly with the idea recently, seems outdated in this world with far greater media options.  It was designed for a world in which the national media was dominated by three television stations and dissenting opinions could be quashed merely by ignoring them.  Lawrence Lessig, a great proponent of net neutrality, has said that in today’s media environment, he believes that the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional. Barack Obama, another liberal and a strong supporter of net neutrality, has also indicated he is opposed to reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine.

Net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are entirely seperate and distinct.  The Republican efforts to confuse the public on this issue have begun.  Stay on the lookout – for you can bet this isn’t the end of this campaign.

Categories
Election 2008 Humor Politics Videos

Stephen Colbert Wants You!

[digg-reddit-me]To try to get him on stage at the Democratic National Convention…

And I think that’s a great idea.

Join the Facebook group “The Committee to Have Stephen Colbert Speak at the Democratic Convention.” Email the Democratic Convention at [email protected].  If the Barack Obama site administrators ever approve my request to start this group on myBarackObama.com, then you can also join that group of the same name as the Facebook group.

Do I think we can get Colbert a speaking role?  I don’t know.

Do I think it would be awesome if we could?  Yes.

Would Colbert give one of the best speeches of the convention?  Hell yea.

Categories
Economics Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iran Iraq McCain National Security Obama Politics The War on Terrorism Videos

A President for Our Dangerous Times

[digg-reddit-me]In dangerous times, we cannot let the larger issues out of sight:

The day to day grind of this campaign – months and months of fights over demographics, over gaffes, over lobbyists, over media bias – has distracted most of us from the essential issues at stake.

The essential choice we face is whether or not our country is going in the right direction.

There is an economic component to this – which will rightfully take up much of the country’s attention in the next few months, and between McCain and Obama, the economic differences are stark.

Perhaps more important is the question of whether or not America should embrace it’s current role as an imperial power, as a neo-empire. McCain clearly accepts this view. One of his foreign policy advisors has explicitly accepted the American empire. Another McCain advisor explained how McCain is planning on creating a League of Democracies to destroy the United Nations and marginalize Russia, quite possibly provoking a new Cold War ((N. B. Fareed Zakaria is not an Obama surrogate as this YouTube video claims but a journalist for Newsweek with his own show in PBS.)) . McCain has said that withdrawing from Iraq – which is what the Iraqi prime minister is requesting of us – would be a surrender to our enemies. (He still doesn’t seem to have noticed that many of our enemies are warring amongst themselves – Sunni extremists, Shia extremists, Al Qaeda, Iranian factions.) At the same time, he has threatened war with Iran while claiming it is naive to consider meeting with any Iranian leaders. (McCain never mentions the candlelight vigils in Tehran after September 11 or Iran’s efforts to come to a comprehensive settlement of all issues between America and Iran immediatly afterwards that were ignored using the same justification McCain now uses to avoid dealing with Iran.) Instead, he jokes “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…)

As Andrew Sullivan wrote:

After the last eight years, we simply cannot risk a continuation of the same reckless, belligerent, argument-losing, ideological and deceptive foreign policy of [the Bush administration.] From his knee-jerk Cold War posture over Georgia to his Rovian campaign tactics, McCain is simply too close to this disastrous record to contemplate… McCain’s trigger-happy temperament, shallow understanding of the complexities and passion for military force as the answer to everything is the bigger risk. He is a recipe for more, wider and far more destructive warfare.

As the conservative curmudgeon George Will explained, invoking Barack Obama’s historic candidacy as a marker:

[I]t illustrates history’s essential promise, which is not serenity – that progress is inevitable – but possibility, which is enough: Things have not always been as they are.

In other words, we can change. We were not always an empire, and we need not always be an empire. We were not always at war, and we do not need to remain at war. Barack Obama will not change anything overnight (we will not all be given bicycles) – because that is not the type of leader he is. He is not a revolutionary urging us to storm the barricades. He is an imperfect leader. He is a sensible pragmatist who believes we are in a unique moment in history in which we have an opportunity to establish meaningful changes by reforming our political, economic, and governmental processes.

The alternative is stark. While I have long been an admirer of John McCain – because he stood up to the President on torture, tax cuts, swiftboating, and global warming – he lost my vote some time ago. He has fought this campaign without honor – ever since his campaign went bankrupt and he began to repudiate every stand he took that hurt him with the Republican base (including on torture, tax cuts, and now apparently, swiftboating.)

In the end, as dire as our economic strength is, this election will be remembered as the the moment when America decided if it was going to remain an empire, or if instead we would return to the best of our traditions, and take our place as a leader in the world community.

In these dangerous times, one candidate poses too great of a risk, and the American people cannot afford to allow a party which has undermined our national security at every turn to remain in power.

Related articles